Within two months after the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged:

Gen. Carter Ham, on October 18.

Adm. Charles Gaouette, on October 27.

Gen. David Petraeus, on November 9.

Gen. John Allen, on November 13.

Ostensibly, Petraeus’ “retirement” and Allen’s suspended promotion are due to both men’s moral conduct. But surely we are not so naive as to think that Petraeus and Allen are the only U.S. military officers who’ve ever committed adultery or written flirtatious email. As for Ham’s “retirement” and Gaouette’s “temporary re-assignment” (reassignment to what?), there is not even a whisper that either man’s morals or personal conduct is at issue.

So what should we make of all this? Is it all just coincidence or something more sinister?

Ann Barnhardt, in her blog of Nov. 13, 2012, didn’t hesitate to call the purges, Obama’s “night of the long knives” — a reference to the last step in Hitler’s quest for total, dictatorial power. On June 30, 1934, the Fuhrer purged the German military of any factions that were in any way autonomous and not 100% loyal to him.

Now add to the above list of four, Marine Corps General James Mattis (above), who has served in the U.S. military for 40 years and is widely revered by rank-and-file Marines for his blunt talk and leadership.

Three weeks after the purge of Gen. Allen came news that four-star Gen. Mattis was told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned, in March 2013, that is, this month. On Dec. 6, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that Mattis would be replaced by Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the vice chief of staff for the Army, subject of course to Senate confirmation.

Gen. James Mattis, 62, is only the head of the most important command of the entire U.S. military — that of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM).

The United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) is a theater-level Unified Combatant Command of the U.S. Department of Defense, established in 1983. Its area of responsibility includes countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq. CENTCOM has been the main American presence in many military operations, including the Persian Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and the Iraq War. Forces from CENTCOM currently are deployed primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan in combat roles and have bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Pakistan, and central Asia in support roles.

Writing for Foreign Policy on Jan. 18, 2013, self-described “fan of President Obama” Thomas E. Ricks claims that the “word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command” because he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way” on the Obama regime’s policy toward Iran.

Reportedly, “tough-minded realist “Mattis “pushed the civilians … hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran” with questions such as: What do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf?

But Mattis’ questions and plea for prudence were “not welcomed” by the White House.

Obama-fan Thomas Ricks points out that, in dismissing Gen. Mattis, “The message the Obama Administration is sending, intentionally or not, is that it doesn’t like tough, smart, skeptical generals who speak candidly to their civilian superiors. In fact, that is exactly what it (and every administration) should want. Had we had more back in 2003, we might not have made the colossal mistake of invading Iraq. […] But I am at the point where I don’t trust his national security team. They strike me as politicized, defensive and narrow. These are people who will not recognize it when they screw up, and will treat as enemies anyone who tells them they are doing that. And that is how things like Vietnam get repeated.”

Ricks also warns that the Obama regime “now have dissed the two Marine generals who are culture heroes in today’s Corps: Mattis and Anthony Zinni. The Marines have long memories.”

Several days ago, FOTM’s lowtechgrannie posted a videoof a media rarity — a reporter who doesn’t toe the party line and isn’t afraid to speak the truth. He’s Fox19 Cincinnati news anchor and investigative reporter Ben Swann.

At the end of the video, Swann noted that in the space of less than one month after the 7-hour Islamic terrorist attack of September 22, 2012, on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four high-level U.S. military flag officers had been removed, for one ostensible reason or another. The four are Generals Petraeus, Allen, and Ham, and Admiral Gaouette. (In the U.S. military, flag officers are general officers in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard of such senior rank that they are entitled to fly their own flags to mark where the officer exercises command.)

Swann withheld speculating on what this quite unprecedented attrition of senior U.S. military officers means. But this attrition cries out for some effort at explanation, no matter how speculative.

We’ll begin with the facts that we’ve been told.

1. General David Petraeus

Gen. Petraeus and Paula Broadwell

A highly-decorated four-star general who had served over 37 years in the U.S. Army, 60-year-old David Petraeus had been Commander of the International Security Assistance Force; Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan; 10th Commander, U.S. Central Command; and Commanding General of Multi-National Force – Iraq who oversaw all coalition forces in Iraq.

On September 6, 2011, Obama recruited Petraeus to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. A week before, in anticipation of that appointment, Petraeus had retired from the U.S. Army.

Petraeus lasted 14 months as CIA director. On November 9, 2012, he resignedfrom the CIA, citing his extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell, a married woman who is the principal author of Petraeus’ biography, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. Petraeus claims that the affair had begun in late 2011 when he was no longer an active duty military officer, and ended in the summer of 2012. The affair reportedly was discovered in the course of an FBI investigation into harassing emails that Broadwell had been sending to Jill Kelley, a Tampa socialite and a longstanding family friend of the Petraeuses whom Broadwell perceived to be a romantic rival.

2. General John R. Allen

Gen. Allen (l); Jill Kelley (r)

A four-star general of the U.S. Marine Corps, 58-year-old General John Allen had succeeded Petraeus as Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan on July 18, 2011. He was nominated to be NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, pending confirmation by the United States Senate.

As part of the fallout of the Petraeus-Broadwell affair, correspondence between Allen and Jill Kelley also came to light. The FBI reportedly uncovered 20,000 to 30,000 pages of correspondence — mostly email — between Allen and Kelley from 2010 to 2012. Reportedly, their correspondence was “flirtatious” and “inappropriate” as Allen and Kelley are both married, but not to each other. (Good grief. How could a 4-star general even have so much free time as to write 20,000 to 30,000 emails in the space of two years to ANYONE?)

On November 13, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta suspended Allen’s confirmation hearing, pending investigations into the general’s “inappropriate communication” with Kelley. Panetta also requested Congress to speed the confirmation of General Joseph Dunford to take over as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In effect, not only will Allen not be promoted, he has lost his present command post in Afghanistan.

3. General Carter F. Ham

U.S. AFRICOM is one of nine Unified Combatant Commands of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). As one of six that are regionally focused, AFRICOM is devoted solely to Africa. James S. Robbins of The Washington Timeswrites that Gen. Ham “is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. ‘Kip’ Ward.”

On October 18, 2012, in a DoD news briefing, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that Gen. Ham was relieved fired: “Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.”

According to Joint doctrine, “the tour length for combatant commanders and Defense agency directors is three years.” But Gen. Ham had only been in the commander position at AFRICOM for a year and a half and the informal word was that he wasn’t scheduled to rotate out until March 2013.

Pat Dollard of BareNakedIslam claims that the scuttlebutt is that, on September 11, 2012, Gen. Ham had received the same e-mails the White House received — from our people in Benghazi, requesting help/support as the terrorist attack was taking place. Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had the unit ready. Dollard writes:

“General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.”

Gen. Ham’s “second in command” is not named. The Pentagon’s official line is that Ham had retired.

4. Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette

Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette

The recipient of various personal decorations and unit awards, including the Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale Award for inspirational leadership in 2003, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette was promoted to Commander of Carrier Strike Group 3 (aka John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group) in April 2012.

Carrier Strike Group 3 is one of five U.S. Navy carrier strike groups currently assigned to the U.S. Pacific Fleet. U.S. Navy carrier strike groups are employed in a variety of roles that involve gaining and maintaining sea control and projecting power ashore, as well as projecting naval airpower ashore.

Carrier Group Three formed the core of the naval power during the initial phase of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001. “Operation Enduring Freedom” is the official name used by the U.S. government for the War in Afghanistan, together with a number of smaller military actions, under the umbrella of the Global “War on Terror”. On 16 July 2012, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that the scheduled deployment of Carrier Strike Group Ten was advanced by four months, with its anticipated area of operation shifting from the U.S. Seventh Fleet in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and North Arabian Sea. On 27 August 2012, four months ahead of schedule, Carrier Strike Group Three departed for an eight-month deployment to the U.S. Fifth Fleet under the command of Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette.

On October 27, 2012, the commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Vice Admiral John W. Miller, ordered the temporary re-assignment of Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette pending the results of an investigation by the Naval Inspector General.Gaouette’s chief of staff, Captain William C. Minter, will lead the strike group until the arrival of Rear Admiral Troy M. (“Mike”) Shoemaker, who will assume command of the strike group.

Tom Lombardo writes for the Navy Times, Oct. 27, 2012, that Adm. Gaouette was relieved, mid-deployment, and is accused of “inappropriate leadership judgment,” according to a Navy official familiar with the case. Gaouette was told to go home — to return to the Carrier Strike Group’s homeport in Bremerton, Washington, until the investigation is complete.

∞

There you have it. Within two months after the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged:

Gen. Ham, on October 18.

Adm. Gaouette, on October 27.

Gen. Petraeus, on November 9.

Gen. Allen, on November 13.

Ostensibly, Petraeus’ “retirement” and Allen’s suspended promotion are due to both men’s moral conduct. But surely we are not so naive as to think that Petraeus and Allen are the only U.S. military officers who’ve ever committed adultery or written flirtatious email. As for Ham’s “retirement” and Gaouette’s “temporary re-assignment” (reassignment to what?), there is not even a whisper that either man’s morals or personal conduct is at issue.

So what should we make of all this? Is it all just coincidence or something more sinister?

Ann Barnhardt, in her blog of Nov. 13, 2012, calls it Obama’s “night of the long knives.”

The last step in Hitler’s quest for total, dictatorial power was the purging of the German military of any factions that were in any way autonomous and not 100% loyal to him, specifically the SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Detachment). The SA was run by Ernst Rohm. On June 30, 1934, the “Night of the Long Knives” was executed when Hitler had Rohm and the rest of the SA leaders killed. Hitler publicly explained that the purge was executed because of sexual perversion in the ranks of the SA who were “plotting” against him.

Barnhardt writes:

And now, the Obama putsch regime is purging them and anyone else they deem to be a threat. It won’t surprise me if Petraeus is indeed court martialed and stripped of his pension, because that is what the rest of the flag officer corps fears more than death. Make an example of Petraeus, and maybe Allen, and that will whip the rest of them into line.

This process of a totalitarian oligarchy constantly purging its own ranks in fits of paranoia and demands for total personal loyalty is as old as the hills. Lenin and Stalin eventually murdered almost every person that entered their inner-circles. Same with Mao. Same with Saddam Hussein. Same with the three Kims in North Korea. Beyond the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler was also having his own people killed continuously.

Just as the Night of the Long Knives in ’34 was just the beginning, so too is this situation in the former American republic just the beginning.

Writing for Veterans Today, Gordon Duff has an even more provocative take on the four military officers:

The decision [to fire Admiral Gaouette] was made based on a conversation with the Secretary of Defense who, at the end of the talk, believed Gaouette was part of a group of military officers who have been under suspicion for planning a “Seven Days in May” type overthrow of the US government if President Obama is re-elected.

This is not conjecture, dozens of key officers face firing, hundreds are under investigation, all with direct ties to extremist elements in the Republican Party and the Israeli lobby.

Reports received are sourced at the highest levels of the Pentagon and indicate that the administration has been aware of these plans for months.

Whatever the truth, one thing of which we can be sure is that the firings of three generals and an admiral have something (or everything) to do with the Benghazi attack. It’ll be interesting if the newly-elected 113th U.S. Congress will conduct serious investigations and hearings on Benghazi, although Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) is already on record as being opposed to an independent investigation.

The corrupt-looking man whose picture you see above is Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the 63-year-old economist, lawyer, politician, member of the French Socialist Party, and former managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

He resigned in disgrace from the IMF last year when a New York hotel maid accused him of sexually assaulting her. Although that case fell apart, Strauss-Kahn still faces criminal charges of ties to a prostitution ring in northern France. His legal defense is at once creative and cocky (no pun intended) — that the authorities are unfairly trying to “criminalize lust.”

In an otherwise humdrum article about Strauss-Kahn in the New York Times on October 14, 2012, reporters Doreen Carvajal and Maia de la Baume dropped this fascinating little bombshell:

That defense and the investigation, which is facing a critical judicial hearing in late November, have offered a keyhole view into a clandestine practice in certain powerful circles of French society: secret soirees with lawyers, judges, police officials, journalists and musicians that start with a fine meal and end with naked guests and public sex with multiple partners.[…]

The exclusive orgies called “parties fines” — lavish Champagne affairs costing around $13,000 each — were organized as a roving international circuit from Paris to Washington by businessmen seeking to ingratiate themselves with Mr. Strauss-Kahn. Some of that money, according to a lawyer for the main host, ultimately paid for prostitutes because of a shortage of women at the mixed soirees orchestrated largely for the benefit of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who sometimes sought sex with three or four women.

But such orgies are not just for Strauss-Kahn because the NYT article proceeds to quote him in an interview with the French magazine Le Point, “There are numerous parties that exist like this in Paris, and you would be surprised to encounter certain people.”

The NYT article continues:

The investigation into the prostitution ring in Lille [France] ultimately swept up 10 suspects, including Mr. Strauss-Kahn. They knew each other largely through their membership as French Freemasons, according to Karl Vandamme, a defense lawyer who represents Fabrice Paszkowski, the owner of a medical supply company who played a crucial role in organizing the sex parties. […] Vandamme…said his client invested around $65,000 in party expenses, betting on the political rise of Mr. Strauss-Kahn.

The banker [Strauss-Kahn]…would typically arrive late for the more than a dozen parties, held over a period of about five years. There was a rhythm to the gatherings, with everyone dressed for a sit-down dinner…. Then over time, couples separated, “kisses were exchanged between one woman and another and between a husband and the wife of a friend” until the guests “all ended up nude.”

“Clandestine” lavish sex orgies of “the powerful,” costing around $13,000 each, “in an international circuit from Paris to Washington”…. “There was a rhythm to the gatherings” where “kisses were exchanged between one woman and another”….

In effect, Strauss-Kahn was describing something long rumored about on the Internet, in books, and in movies — ritualistic (“a rhythm”) sex orgies of the world’s upper elite whom some call the Illuminati.

Here are two segments from director Stanley Kubrick’s last movie, Eyes Wide Shut. The first video depicts a pre-orgy Satanic ritual in a lavish mansion, attended by masked and black-robed elites. Note how the naked young women in the circle exchange kisses (“kisses were exchanged between one woman and another”).

WARNING: nudity and simulated sexual intercourse

The second video shows Dr. Bill Harford, the character played by Tom Cruise, walking from room to room, observing the orgiastic sex:

In a long article on The Kentroversyblog (which I recommend you read in its entirety), Kent Bentkowski gives an analysis of the occult symbolism in Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut. Here are excerpts from Bentkowski’s article:

In 1999, an extremely peculiar film was released by legendary film director Stanley Kubrick, which would end up the sixteenth and final film he would direct in his career. […] The film, Eyes Wide Shut, was filled with the symbolism that astute researchers have come to recognize as the calling card of the Illuminati, the synarchist group of global rulers, who believe in rule by birthright, and who rule this planet by the ‘iron fist in a velvet glove’ divide and conquer methodology. […] Once this symbolism is understood, only then does the film begin to make sense. This film is a fitting metaphor for our times, as we face the reality of those among us who are asleep, and those of us who are awake, as our world has fallen under the influences of very dark and evil forces. […]

At the opening party at Victor Ziegler’s house, Alice Harford [the character played by Nicole Kidman] meets up with and dances with a Hungarian man. The name of this character is Sandor Szavost. This character shares his name with the creator of the Church of Satan, Anton Sandor LaVey. This would be an accurate analogy, as members of the global elite are all dedicated to either Lucifer or Satan. Their religion has them believe that both Lucifer and Satan are good [….] This type of thinking is extremely twisted, and represents what some have called a Satanic Reversal–evil is good, lies are truth, death is life, and darkness is light. […]

Of the films’ two and one-half hours, the most curious aspect are the thirty-five minutes that take place during Dr. Bill Harford’s trip to the masked ball […] the Illuminati sex-magick ritual […] which actually occurs behind closed doors in some of the most exclusive housing in the entire world. […] The chanting is in reverse, and is of a Romanian priest giving a mass in Latin. […]

Only four days after Kubrick turned in the final cut of EWS to Warner Brothers, he was ‘found’ dead by his wife. He had no heart trouble, and wasn’t ill before his sudden and shockingly unexpected death. […] However, according to William Cooper, author of the book BEHOLD A PALE HORSE, and the forty-two hour series on the Illuminati and their Babylon mystery religion entitled MYSTERY BABYLON, stated during the second broadcast of MYSTERY BABYLON, that Stanley Kubrick was himself an initiate of the Mysteries. This helps to explain […] the MASKED BALL portion of the film, and his shockingly unexpected death [….] in making this film, director Stanley Kubrick may have made the fatal mistake of showing too much truth concerning a group of self-appointed global elite world rulers known as the Illuminati.

In her blog of November 13, 2012, “Night of the Long Knives Part 1,” Ann Barnhardt relates what the wife of a U.S. Army flag officer told her about a wife-swapping or swinger party. (Note that when you go to Barnhardt’s site, you’ll have to scroll down until you find that article because Barnhardt does not enable the reading of an individual post.)

When I was a teenager back in Leavenworth, Kansas, I had occasion to become acquainted with a German lady who had just married a US Army flag officer that she met while working as a civilian contractor on a US Army base in Germany. Her husband was transferred to Ft. Leavenworth, which almost all flag officers pass through at some point. She was a strikingly handsome woman and super-sharp. She was very happy and was eagerly trying to get pregnant and start her family, as she was 35 or so at the time.

The last time I saw her, she was in a state of shock. She had left her husband, was filing for divorce, homeless and trying to organize getting back to Germany. Here is what happened.

She had finally become pregnant. She had just found out and hadn’t even told her husband yet. They had been invited to and were attending a party being thrown by the post commander at his home that evening. Most of the upper-echelon flag officers at Ft. Leavenworth would be there. She was very excited and happy that she and her husband were literally now moving amongst the highest levels of the top brass in the US military, and she planned to tell her husband that night after the party that she was pregnant.

They arrived at the party in the gorgeous and huge old home of the post commander. In the foyer, there was a large bowl that all of the men placed their car keys into upon entering the house. She figured that this had something to do with drunk driving protections, as there was certainly drinking at this party. She thought nothing of it.

As midnight rolled around, the party suddenly concluded. All of the couples then moved into the foyer. One by one, the wives stepped up to the bowl full of keys and drew out a set at random. The wives then matched the keys up with their male owners and then left with that man.

It was a wife-swapping party.

When my acquaintance realized what was going on she refused. Her husband was livid.

When she got home she packed a bag and left. The stress of going from being on top of the world and happier than she had ever been to having her marriage destroyed, being betrayed so casually and sickeningly by her husband, and being made essentially homeless and penniless in a span of about five minutes caused her to immediately miscarry the baby a few hours later.

Barnhardt continues in “Night of the Long Knives Part 2″:

Wife-swapping and other perverse, orgiastic activities are extremely common among the US flag officer corps. The level of bizarre sexual depravity we are seeing with [General David] Petraeus and now [General John R.] Allen, is common to the point of being pedestrian. It is exactly the same kind of sodomitical filth that pervades the political class. They are all sex perverts and cheats. Find me a flag officer or politician that isn’t cheating on his spouse or a pervert and I’ll be shocked. Sexual perversion is intrinsic to this class of people. These people are psychopathically insane, because you would have to be psychopathically insane to want anything to do with either the political class OR the flag officer corps today.

I can’t tell you how many emails I have received over the last year and a half from men who have exited the United States Military as either a Captain or Major because they simply could not bear to be a part of the repulsive, honorless, amoral culture. They couldn’t advance because at a certain point you literally have to sell your soul and become a purely political animal in order to climb the ladder.

And are you really surprised? Every single flag officer in the United States Military today is, by definition, an oath-breaking traitor. Barack Obama is not eligible to be POTUS and is almost certainly not a U.S. citizen. And not ONE WORD. Not one word from the flag officer corps. Why? Because they are politicians at heart, and they will never do anything to jeopardize their O-7, O-8, O-9 or O-10 pension packages.

Am I surprised that Petraeus and Allen and the rest are pathetic, pervy fornicators with the common sense of a pile of toenail clippings? Am I surprised that Petraeus was sending dozens and dozens of emails per day to his girlfriend and that their pillowtalk included national security secrets? Am I surprised that Petraeus and Allen have spent their careers walking around with a “BLACKMAIL ME” sign taped to their backs? Nope. These people are imbeciles and psychopaths who implemented and oversaw rules of engagement that have intentionally gotten our boys killed as a literal sacrifice of total submission to islam. Watch this and then tell me what an intelligent and honorable man David Petraeus is:

Like probably a lot of you reading this, I was skeptical about claims of a Satanic global elite, whether it’s called the Illuminati or not, who engage in ritualistic sex orgies and pedophilia (see Nick Bryant’sThe Franklin Scandal). But Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s admission of participating in lavish “sex parties” attended by the powerful “from Paris to Washington” should give the skeptics pause.

For Wikipedia’s account of the Petraeus sex scandal, go here. For General Allen’s exchanges of countless flirtatious and suggestive email with a married Florida socialite, go here.

Update (July 30, 2013):

Vigilant Citizen has an outstanding series of articles on Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut. Here are Part 1 and Part 2 of the series.

See also creepy pics from a 1972 mask ball thrown by the Rothchilds in the UK. Click here. Look in particular at the 3rd to last photo — of a table centerpiece comprised of mutilated baby dolls. Hint at child sacrifice? Sick!

P.S. The coming-to-their-senses of American women is one reason why I vehemently disagree with Ann Barnhardt. In her blog of September 1, 2012, she bemoaned the passage of the 19th Amendment that extended suffrage, the right to vote, to females. (Since Barnhardt’s websitehas no search function nor a “click” function to upload an individual essay, to find that essay you’ll have to go to her webpage and ask your web browser to search for “19th Amendment”. Alternately, you can go to this blog to read her essay.)

@Ann: The solution is to inform and persuade American women. The solution is NOT to take the right to vote from women!

Besides, by Barnhardt’s “reasoning,” since 96% of black voters went for Obama in 2008, we should also abolish the 15th Amendment that prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race. And since Obama won the under age 30 crowd by 34% in 2008, we should also abolish the 26th Amendment that lowers the voting age to 18 years. Then there are the 77% of Jewish Americans who voted for Obama in 2008….

Sharia (Arabic for “legislation”) is the moral code and religious law of Islam. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law such as crime, but also what the West regards as personal private matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. In its strictest definition, sharia is considered the infallible law of God but is interpreted by Islamic judges and religious scholars.

The reintroduction of sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim countries. Some in Israel and other countries in Asia have maintained institutional recognition of sharia, and use it to adjudicate their personal and community affairs. In western countries where Islamic immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced sharia family law for use in their own disputes, such as Britain’s Muslim Arbitration Tribunal.

Now, the Obama administration has raised the black flag of sharia over the United States of America.

The AP reports, Sept. 15, 2012, that a Southern California filmmaker is being “investigated” by federal authorities and, last Saturday, was brought to a Los Angeles sheriff’s stations be “interviewed” — all because this man is identified to be “the key figure” behind a film that Muslims say denigrates Islam and its prophet Muhammad.

Federal authorities have identified Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, a self-described Coptic Christian, as the key figure behind “Innocence of Muslims.” On Saturday, Sept. 15, 2012, Nakoula was interviewed by federal probation officers for about half an hour at the station shortly after 12 a.m. in his hometown of Cerritos, Calif., said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Los Angeles County sheriff’s department.

Nakoula went voluntarily to the station, wearing a coat, hat, scarf and glasses that concealed his appearance.

Image of Nakoula from a video provided by CBS2-KCAL9

After being “interviewed” at the L.A. sheriff’s station, Nakoula decided not to return to his home that has been besieged by media, but apparently has gone into hiding, authorities said. “He is gone. We don’t know where he went,” Whitmore said. “He said he is not going back to his home.”

Federal officials are also investigating whether Nakoula has violated the terms of his 5-year probation. Nakoula had pleaded no contest to bank fraud charges in 2010 and was banned from using computers or the Internet or using false identities as part of his sentence. If found to be in violation of his probation terms, so, a judge could send him back to prison.

A federal law enforcement official said authorities had connected Nakoula to a man using the pseudonym of Sam Bacile who claimed earlier to be writer and director of the film. Much of the film was shot inside the offices of Media for Christ, a nonprofit based in the Los Angeles-area city of Duarte. The charity raised more than $1 million last year “to glow Jesus’ light” to the world.

Also being intimidated is Steven Klein, a script adviser to the film and a Vietnam vet who has a long history of anti-Islamic activism. He told the Press-Enterprise newspaper that he has received multiple death threats. “I’m really tired,” said when he answered the door of his home in Hemet, Calif., Friday with a pistol in his hand and clad only in a pair of white shorts stained with what appeared to be ink spots. Appearing agitated and waving the gun, Klein said he was standing up for his First Amendment rights in helping with the film and said he is prepared to die for those rights.

Despite U.S. intelligence information that the outbreak of anti-American violence in Egypt, Libya, and other Muslim countries is a “well-coordinated” and “well-planned” undertaking instead of spontaneous protests against the movie, the Obama administration and the mainstream U.S. media continue to portray the movie as being the provocation.

Even if the protests and violence were reactions to the movie, since when does the United States government bow to political pressure by launching a campaign of intimidation (under the guise of “investigating” and “interviewing”) against the simple exercise of our Constitutionally-guaranteed First Amendment right to free speech?

I don’t recall the Obama administration “investigating” Bill Maher, who wrote and starred in “Riligulous,” an atheistic documentary that mocks organized religion and religious belief — including Islam.

Ann Barnhardt, who is fearlessly outspoken about Islam, correctly identifies the U.S. government going after the makers of this movie as the descent of America into sharia rule. She writes:

The Obama regime is going after the people who made the cheesy mohammed movie that the musloids are blaming the riots on.

They are “suggesting” that YouTube “review” the content of the clip of the movie they have posted, and are also now looking to jail one of the filmmakers.

In addition, the Obama propaganda arm operating as the L.A. Times has posted pictures and explicit location descriptions of the home of one of the filmmakers, clearly an effort to intimidate the filmmakers and to pass tactical intel to the muslim brotherhood. […]

The only way you fight and destroy this evil is by RIDING OUT TO MEET IT. No capitulation. No compromise. No appeasement. No apologies. No negotiation. And then you lay down the righteous assbeating to end all assbeatings, and you do not stop until the evil is totally, completely and utterly destroyed. Anything less is a sin against God and your fellow man.

You can come after me if you want, boys. You come after me. That’s fine. I have no problem laying down my life: for my fellow Americans, for my fellow human beings, and for the Church. I have no problem with that. Come and get it. But I’m not going to lay down. That is not what Christ commands. There are times when we have to fight. We fight evil. We fight the evil in the world, and this crap is EVIL.

My name is Ann Barnhardt. I’m at 9175 Kornbrust Circle, 80124, in Lone Tree, Colorado. Anybody who wants a piece of me is more than welcome to come and get it. That goes for Lindsey Graham, anyone in the government who thinks that this is a crime, or any muslims who would like to come and get a piece of me. I’ve had enough of this crap. I am not going to bow. I am not going to submit to islam, ever. EVER.

Barnhardt also is a financial maven, being the owner and president of Barnhardt Capital Management, an independent introducing brokerage company. On her blog,in her May 23, 2012, post, she sounds the warning that penson stock is collapsing and urges her readers to get out.

Seriously. If you or anyone you know has money in a Penson-cleared account, you really, really need to be getting out of there. This includes futures, stocks, anything. In fact, the vast majority of their business is on the equities side. The stock was down 11% yesterday, and is now down another 8.5% today. New lows today at $0.30, last trade at $0.32.

It is getting very ugly very quickly. Given everything that has happened (MF Global), is happening (Facebook IPO ripoff), and is going to happen (JP Morgan clusterbungle), if you think that you are somehow “safe” and “everything will shake out okay” and “no worries”, you’re simply out of your gourd.

Here’s the chart. Remember, this is just a THREE MONTH chart. My blanket response to ANY question about PNSN is simply, “DUDE, LOOK AT THE CHART.”

Barnhardt also believes that JP Morgan Chase’s losses — initially said to be $2 billion, then we’re told the revised figure is $7 billion — actually are as much as $30+ billion. In her words:

Why? Because as ZeroHedge pointed out, JP Morgan has stopped their stock buy-back program even though their share price has tanked. Interestingly, JPM was told by the Fed that IF they suffered a $31 Billion dollar prop trade loss, they would have to suspend all stock buy-backs. Uh-huh. Dollars to doughnuts says JPM lost at minimum $30 billion.

We “get it” as to why the Liberal Establishment Media simply refuse to investigate or even pay attention to the mounting evidence on Obama’s dubious birth eligibility to be POTUS. But we are baffled why supposedly Conservative media such as FoxNews and Hot Air, pundits such as Ann Coulter, and talk show hosts like Sean Hannity also shy away from it. Worse still,Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reillynot just avoid it, they go out of their way to mock the “birthers”.

The fearless and outspoken Ann Barnhardt has an idea as to why. Here’s a hint:

“Follow the money!”

The following are excerpts from her blog of May 17, 2012, “Yes, I saw the Breitbart Obama Bio Thing” – referring to the revelation that, as recently as 2007, Obama’s literary agency Acton & Dystel in its book promotional brochures described Obama as having been “born in Kenya”:

Two points:

1. This proves that Obama is a stone-cold liar and con-man. Checkmate. Either he lied when he said he was born in Kenya, or he lied when he said he was born in Hawaii. The fact that he commissioned and released an OBVIOUSLY FORGED Hawaiian birth certificate certainly causes the Obama garbage scow to list to the side of the lie being that he was born in Hawaii.

Barack Obama IS A LIAR. He is a man of degenerate morality, and is a psychopath. Is anyone going to do anything about the fact that a con-artist psychopath is the Chief Executive of the largest economy in the world and the history of the world? Is anyone going to do anything about the fact that a con-artist psychopath is the Commander-in-Chief of the largest military force in the world and the history of the world? Is anyone going to do anything about the fact that the entire intelligence, law enforcement and bureaucracy of the United States government is either so incompetent that they couldn’t even vet ONE MAN or that they are complicit in Obama’s con?

Which segues into my second point . . .

2. The Breitbart group AND the HotAir fools (Ed Morrisey and Allahpundit), ONCE AGAIN are pissing all over people who dare point out that Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of the Presidency is seriously, seriously in question. They are doing this in the same breath WHILE REPORTING THIS VERY STORY, which proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that Obama is a liar and con-artist.

WHY? Why do these “conservatives” refuse to engage reality on this point?

I know the answer, and I warn you, it is very depressing.

These folks have made a BOATLOAD of money off of the Obama usurpation.Bottom line: Obama is good for business if you are a “conservative” blogger looking to advance your career and either move into a high-paying gig in the “mainstream media” OR attempting to establish a new-model business like Glenn Beck. It was reported (I think in Forbes) that Beck made a cool $80 million last year. Don’t think for a second that Morrisey, Allahpundit and the Breitbart Team aren’t salivating at the thought of seven-to-eight figure annual hauls.

I actually believe that most of these folks are rooting for Obama to “win”, for whatever that means in a lawless electoral environment, in November because Obama is very, very good for their businesses. Think about yourself. Do you read more or less news now than you did four years ago? Oh, I’d be willing to bet that you read MULTIPLES of what you read four years ago. I do. No doubt.

In order to get those page views, and thus that ad revenue, these folks want as much upheaval and fear among their readers as possible. Obama provides upheaval, fear and outrage in massive quantities. Thus more page views. Thus more income. If Romney is “elected”, many folks would stand down and traffic to sites like HotAir, Breitbart and Beck would curtail precipitously.

Before you accuse me of hypocrisy, please remember that there are no ads on this site. I have been told that I could easily generate several thousand dollars per month by putting ads up here. I refuse. I refuse to profiteer off of the end of the world. I also fully realize that if I started advertising here that I would notice and CARE about traffic, and would thus censor or otherwise shade what I write in order to maximize revenues and retain readers. Okay, at that point I would not be serving God, I would be serving mammon (money). Nope. I don’t give a crap if I have ten million readers or zero. It’s all exactly the same to me, and it is going to stay that way. In other words, HONEST.

Doing this “blogging thing” has done nothing but cost me money, and now that Barnhardt Capital Management is no longer in business (thanks to Obama crony and oligarch Jon Corzine, who stole $1.6 billion and totally destroyed the entire financial market paradigm) I am burning through reserves with each passing month. I have enough material to publish at least TWO books of essays – I even have a self-publishing deal ready to go – but I can’t bring myself to do it because I don’t want to go to hell for profiteering off of the death of my country and civilization.

So yeah, I am uniquely qualified to call out these money-hungry bloggers and pundits (Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh) who refuse to report on the fact that Obama is illegitimate, and who may even be rooting for his reign to continue.

Sins of omission are every bit as grave as sins of commission, and protecting income or assets is not a valid excuse for concealing the truth. Michelle, Ann C. and Rush may be able to buy their way out of the country when the poop hits the prop, but they won’t be able to buy their way out of their Particular Judgments.

+++

Like Barnhardt’s blog, Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM) also does not make any money for its owner (Dr. Eowyn) or our hardworking team of writers. FOTM does not solicit ads, nor do we have ads on this site. But FOTM’s host, WordPress, does occasionally insert an ad into one of our posts — which FOTM writers don’t see but you, dear reader, do. FOTM has no control over it, nor do we derive even a penny from those WordPress-inserted ads.

Like Barnhardt, I’ve also been told if FOTM were to go the commercial route, with total “hits” or views of over 4,373,000 in a mere 2 years and 5 months, we’d probably make thousands of dollars a month in ad revenue. But I had made a decision at FOTM’s inception on December 23, 2009, that this blog will remain non-commercial for the same reason as Barnhardt’s: I want our writers to speak the truth, unimpeded by fears of offending ad sponsors.

And that is why I laugh whenever some drive-by troll or an outraged reader goes into a hissy fit and threatens that he or she will no longer read FOTM. That threat is an empty one because it makes no difference to us: FOTM doesn’t live or die by how many hits we get. So if someone goes into a snit and threatens to forever leave FOTM, it’s not our loss. The loss is wholly yours!